CONQUEROR

[mc05025]

I think the ideal of conqueror being a skillful player who can general win at styles that require skill is a fair one. But the point is that this could differ widely based on who you ask and what seems to demonstrate true skill.

It is not about opinions. I very well and strictly defined it. A game demonstrate true skill if when played multiple times the skillful player is dominating it. The highest the win rate the highest the true skill required.

For each style the skillful player can (and should) pick the games that maximises the skill required in order to maximise the win rate.

For example multiplayer escalating requirs skill. Jalijoo has proven that. If you chose 4 players at doodle earth you will fail to prove it. The skillful player can and should pick the game of each style that will allow him to prove his skill.
1v1 in simple small maps does not require skill because there is no player who can play these games and has a high rate of wins. So this is not a style the conqueror should play.

Same with rest styles.

So, in the ideal world the conqueror would play all styles chosing the exact set up for each style to maximise the dependency of skill and win rate.

As we are not at ideal world and there is no system to achieve the above, what we have is fine

[Dukasaur]

Winning multiplayer games takes a lot of skills, no matter who is playing. It includes the ability to use diplomacy, and to understand/plan how will others player react to your actions. I'd say if we want to know who is the risk player we should only consider multiplayers games actually. Because that's what risk is about originally.
They do reflect skill, they actually even reflect more skills, you need to master the map, and to master the players. Poly is only about mastering the maps, it doesn't matter who you're playing against. Ofc once he a while a player may start to suicide on you and screw the game, but that is part of what you need to master when you play multiplayer game.

Also consider conquerors/high rank players are mainly playing polymorphic and team games. There are very few players above general that achieve the rank by playing multiplayer games, because it's harder. Your idea that you can win lot of point easily is wrong there.

Ill be humble enough in my response to admit I don't player these games because I don't think it shows skill, at all. But beyond this, my ability to truly answer it isn't at the level Id like it to be at - I don't bother playing them. But I think I can tackle the topic on a few fronts just to get my point across a bit more than the quoted paragraph which is incomplete. But, your brief statement to I would say is vastly incomplete in showing that standard 8 player games demonstrate or require skill.

This is in reference to who would be considered conqeuror... so if it was who is conqueror based on who can win standard games as you suggest, yes I could see we would could evaluate on some level who is best at these standard games... but I don't think it will reflect skill or even be anything worth noting really.

You dismiss Don's point without much thought. You look down on the skills required to excel in a multiplayer environment because they aren't your skills.

You excel at playing foggy games on a very big complicated map, where you can defeat the average player, and even most above-average players, simply because there are too many variables for the average person to juggle. The average person can read the log on Baltic Crusades and fairly well deduce what is going on in the fog, but on USA 2.1 (or any of the other five or six maps of that level of complexity) the problem becomes overwhelming for most.

Perhaps you really are a supergenius who can balance all the variables in your head, or perhaps you have enough patience to haul out a pencil and paper and draw some decision matrices, or perhaps you are a computer programmer who has written some algorithms to simplify the task. All three are possibilities. I don't sneer at any of them. If it's the first, that is awesome, but even if it is one of the other two then my hat is off to you as someone who possesses skills that I don't.

I'm sure you're an excellent accountant or actuary or whatever you are in real life, but none of this has anything to do with Risk, or with war games in general.

Risk is a game primarily of diplomacy and being a good judge of human character. It has its actuarial component, sure enough, but that is secondary. We all roll dice and in the end they more-or-less balance out. What separates the winners from losers in tabletop Risk is being able to either negotiate favourable alliances, or to vanish into the furniture and have others forget you even exist while you build up your forces. The single most important skill in Risk is how to look weak while actually being strong, and in tabletop Risk that's done without the benefit of fog, having just a few extra troops here and just a few extra troops there, so that until it's too late nobody realizes just how strong you really are. It's even a skill how to physically place your little lozenges on the board, never stacking them in an aggressive fashion, scattering them about haphazardly and using the edges of the territories as camouflage.

Okay, you dismiss old-fashioned Risk as just a piece of shat, and actually I don't disagree. But the picture is the same if you extend your gaze outward to the field of war games in general, or to real-life war.

If you consider any of the great conquerors of real-life history -- Darius or Tamerlane or Charlemagne or Alexander or Genghis -- none of them were actuaries or professors of algebra. I think Alexander was the only one on the list with a real education in the modern sense, and while he enjoyed politics and ethics he tended to sneer at his math and science lessons. What those men all have in common is that they were all excellent judges of other men's character. They knew who could be turned into a friend and who would have to be conquered as an enemy. They knew who could be intimidated and who would refuse to bow to intimidation. They knew when to rush forward with brutal power and when to hang back and pretend some weakness. They knew when to bluff and when to be 100% open. No less that the Risk player, they had a knack for misdirection and not letting the enemy know the full magnitude of their power until it was too late.

Ultimately the art of conquest is the art of psychology. Multiplayer games model that. Head-to-head games don't. Ultimately head-to-head games are cold exercises in mathematical deduction with no human element. You may excel at them, but a well-written computer program could beat you. For all we know, some of the conquerors out there may have been computer programs. I'm not putting you down. Your skill (whichever it is, organic statistics juggling, or pen-and-paper matrices, or computer algorithms) is definitely something. But it's math, not war.

[random21]

Whats written demonstrates the points, but I suppose I still disagree with the conclusion.

Lets see if I can manage a small length response. (came back to edit this - I failed gonna rant for another long post. if you like reading... well you are welcome. If you don't whatever the thing is tldr? I am ... ok with us disagreeing. See your point, but still don't agree. end edit)

I agree there is a skillset within multiplayer risk, and I read all that you say but Im still not quite satisfied so perhaps we will never breach this empass.

I have played many games of real life risk. Classic risk... when we were forced to. But quickly, Godstorm, 2210 AD, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and others etc very quickly disbanded our interest in classic risk. The risk and suspense of the latter non classic risk versions are unimaginable. If you have played multiple versions of risk please inform me which. I am not saying this ... with aggression, or to flounce who's played more risk. But if you played any of the ones I just listed or some of the others like Halo, or Starcraft risk.... there are some pretty nifty cards in these that make it clear simple diplomacy will not win you risk games. I grew up playing risk with mainly my 2 cousins. They were brothers. Could I vocally point out things on the board and get them to attack each other and make myself look a little less powerful? Sure I could. I did. I won most of our games. But lets break that down, I don't credit myself those 100s of games I won as skill. I came on here and figured to myself, sure I grew up playing as a kid playing my cousins, but we played in our little circle. They had their brother rivalry that could only really benefit me, so could I join cc and realistically expect that id be just as good vs 100s of players vs cousins, friends or what not? No. I basically thought to myself, we had our method of risk, but it won't necessarily translate to this site, so figure out what to do on this site to reach some success.

To expand on this, there are many reasons I can say that as much as diplomacy and reading your opponents could help your exploit some inner demon they might have... it won't help you win risk ... skillfully. That will expand itself in other ways. I will try to illustrate this with meaningless examples, but they seem to jump to my mind. I played mostly exclusively manual deploy. And you usually devoted your entire deploy to making 1-3 large stacks on any game of risk. This is how we played classic, lord of the rings, god storm etc. 2210 AD came around and shook us to our core. In that game, there was one land event card that stated when you were attacked in a territory, immediately destroy half the attacking army. Our basic reaction was: GULP. You mean any one of our starting stacks after a couple turns *you had to earn the cards...* could just wipe out half our stack. So not to go into huge narration but our level of skill with this card and gameplay of risk evolved. First, we d each go for land cards VERY quickly (but hint, diplomat cards in 2210 AD are wickedly powerful... my cousins caught on to this quicker than I ..one such card cancels an attack an opponents makes against you, and they are no longer able to make ANY attack against you on their turn). Ridiculously OP, but so is wiping out half the stack of attacking territory. Not optional. You attack with 52 troops, you lose 26. So back to this... we all think, ok well get everyone quickly rush in early game to get 2 land cards. Playing a card cost a form of currency in the game, so we d each set aside the amount needed to play the card. It was like we were each bluffing. Any of us might have the card in the beginnings so we all played more carefully... needlessly carefully but it was just the start of our learning curve. We poke and prodded with our massive stacks, trying to figure out who had the card... or was it not in play? Did they have enough saved up to use the card if they were attacked? ETC etc. Any of this might include some level of skill. Talking and all that. Yes yes. But then we figured it out in a way what nuclear on cc teaches you. Our bias for huge stacks wasn't good for 2210 AD. In 2210 you make every territory you own a 10 stack, and you pick and tear away at your opponent from every position. We went from using 1=3 stacks, to basically ... anything was worth stacking if you could draw that card out and no longer worry about. (OK there were other bad cards, but that was the big meany). Also, another flaw in the strategy... was it only had a brief narrow window where it really made sense. Eventually someone WOULD draw the card (there was only 1 of it) and the other 2 poising strength would just be almost doubly weak. 1 the person who draws it gains an enormous advantage by having the card 2) the 2 that don't have the card were holding back GOOD PLAYABLE cards, that is of more benefit to play than to pretend to be a deterrent that is not. (if they played the 2 good cards they'd be left without the deterrent) Sooner or later, the development of 2210 AD gameplay adjusted for the land detonation card and it wasn't really the menace. Diplomat deck was in contrast more fluid for gameplay, and while a land detonation kills half an army, *even though you try to get them to waste it on a smaller attack because you just attack with like 8 different territories all with 10 stacks and they realize... better just use it and do some damage then save it forever and lose. Um, yeh, there are cards that instead of wiping out half an army... just literally stop attacks and you can't be attacked anywhere by that player on their turn. And of that card, there were multiple in the diplomat deck...

Talking to your opponent can't stop event cards.

In lord of the rings there is a card which says when a player attacks you, they lose 2 troops, and the territory you are being attacked in gains 2 troops. Useless in later parts of the game, but devastating powerful early on. The way is under the mountains is a card In Lord of the rings where there is terrain. 2 cards in the deck let you ignore and just go right through (mountain bordered) bonusesn. Try playing 80 games of lord of the risk knowing that any bonus you have with a mountainous edge will be exploited and try to plan effectively to counter it. That takes skill. You have to accept you can't stop it, but the weakness is that once they use it, its a one time break and has some draw backs. If they go in, all the troops they send in will be stuck, unless they have the 2nd the way is under the mountain card to use again on a later attack to get back out. So if you really do have numerical advantage 1) they ll just send in like 3-5 troops just to break the bonus, and maybe drag it out so that you can't immediately take it back with your deploy on the next turn, but you will be able to fort and then maybe two turns later get it back. 2) they ll send in everything and be stuck. And that is when you have huge counter play. Assuming you had stacks on your borders in the front, they must have abandoned their defence to attack you.. so depends if they had bonuses or not. But sometimes it led to massive invasions. At best you can try to talk your opponents into not using these cards against you (them using it on someone else). But how you use them, how creative and ruthless you can use them ... is skill. Not the talking.

In godstorm ... well there is so much. It is probably the fastest game of risk you will every play. You buy gods (or pray to them and gain faith tokens so they fight for you). Most powerful and get them on basically first turn: god of war, attacker wins ties as long as he's in the territory you are attacking with, not the defender. And god of magic, reroll your 1s on defence or attack. You roll 2s at worst. Turns when you have 40 troops, god of war in the territory, god of magic in the territory... and the event cards in the deck... um Discussion does not matter. Playing the board does. It wasn't foggy. No teams. You just take 40 troops and wreck. And 40 troops kills 40 defending troops relatively easily when you win ties, and re roll your 1s. Also, nifty card in god storm ARMY TELEPORTATION! ok, not actually called army teleportation. But you play the card, and its like instant beginning of turn parachute fort from any one spot of the map to any other part of the map... or maybe its a chained fort, I can't actually remember. But... it is ridiculously powerful. And if you don't get the card, and someone else does, you just anxiously wait, and see what devastating plan of attack they spent conjuring up in their heads the last few rounds cause nothing is safe in god storm.

Lets talk about Star Wars risk. You get cards. Cards can be used in three different ways. You can trade them in normally at a flat rate *Star Wars doesn't use escalating if Im remembering correctly. But this is pointless. Don't do this. The other use is each card will have an icon on it. You get capital ships, cruisers, and fighters. tie or x wing. etc. You spend the card, and get a token of the corresponding ship type. Capitals let you use 1 8 sided die per capital ship. So if you want to roll or defend with 3 or 2 8 sided dice, you need to get 3 capital cards and trade them in. Then 50% of your rolls will be 5 or higher. And you will smash opponents that don't upgrade their dice. Cruisers will give you plus 1 to your highest die roll. Ok so, if they have +1 and roll 6, they'll get 7s. But if you have 2 capitals, and a cruiser you might get 8... and then its a 9. Um. 9s win Star Wars risk pretty effectively. Here all Ill say is the skill is choosing for going for the ships, and not the flat rate influx of +10 troops. You can use the troops you have and start rolling 8 sided dice to better effect then bringing in a few measly extra troops. But it is luck as to what cards you get. I.e. what if all you draw is fighter cards. Well that just means 1 die roll you cast can not be a 1. So if you get 3 fighters, and put them in a territory. Then, none of your dice can end off as a 1. Just keep rolling til you get something better. Not bad, but not great. If you get 3 capitals, 3 cruisers, and 3 fighters . Its up to you. All in same territory? oR SPREAD THEM out. if all troops in a territory are lost, the ships also get killed. So all in one is probably solid... and ... it will destroy things. Finally, the card will have some fancy text on it. Ok also in Star Wars there's this thing where there is a sidious marker that moves up a grid and when it gets high enough well the dark side wins. And the cards mostly revolve around republic and separatists manipulating the sidious pawn in their favour, or that aspect of the game. So its bit harder to describe. But a generic good capital card that always tore me was, you can use the capital card to get 1 capital ship *usually good) but this one capital card gives you the ability of 3 cruisers for an entire attack against a territory. So if planet A wants to attack Planet B, during your attack on Planet B the card states all of your dice get +1 for the entire invasion. its ridiculously fun to choose not to get the capital ship, and just use it for the text. Especially if you've got at least 1 capital ship in play and 1 cruiser in play. The abilities stack. So if you have a cruiser also, you ll get plus 2 on a best dice roll. An 8 sided die could give you a 10.

The combinations in these games are relentlessly difficult. Starcraft risk if you play as a Zerg armies *armies have races in Starcraft risk, not just generic colour, and you draw from decks based on your race. If you are Zerg, you can draw tunneling, and it lets you skip through at territory to attack a territory behind it. So basically a bonus smasher. or a, I see your big army out in front, let me just slip in behind it. The cards I stated were about 1%. There are enough cards in all the games of risk to make you believe conversation in risk is not that part of risk that will win you games. its how you play with the resources you have.

My opinion of this in case of cc is no different. Sure, cc is way easier than any manufactured game of risk after the classic version. BUT it has its own points of interest. I never grew up playing fog. or team games. or polymorphic. Trench might slightly be suggestion in the rulebook of 2210 ad, but we didn't really play trench I think. Ill give cemented out trench play for my experience as a CC thing. Bombardment, 1 way assaults, etc also completely cc. A map which includes bombarding as an ingrained part of the gameplay is not asking the player to use their skill of psychology to win the game. Its saying, look at what this map is letting you do to win. USE THAT THING TO WIN.

I also don't understand the fixation on escalating. Classic risk comes with multiple ways of trading in right in the rules. Flat rate is a classic risk construction. Ive seen many people complain about balance (luck) with flat rate. I played flat rate a lot. My Eurasia sunny trips games are always flat rate. Look through my game log or whatever. I almost play no escalating (probably a flaw to my game... sure I won't deny, Id be better if I had more experience at escalating games... I just don't like them... but there is skill to that variation of risk) Sometimes the manufactured risk version only allows for flat rate, they don't balance it for escalating. But lots of times, we just didn't think escalating was worth playing. And yes, I fully accept that is on me. There is skill to escalating I won't deny it. But its just... ugh. I mean, you start getting 4, then it jumps. Eventually you put in such a large amount, and then if you can eliminate just 1 opponent then you get their cards! Then you can go on a killing spree. Even if you don't eliminate or win in one turn (though many times I think you can) you can still get a huge advantage. But even here, I don't need my points to stick. Maybe I'm talking out of my ass. maybe there is all the skill in the world involved in an 8 player standard multiplayer game. OR 16 player or whatever the major thing on cc is. But I'm honest and Ill admit I don't see it. Foggy and escalating versions of multiplayer I find more suspect. If someone is skilled at sunny flat rate multiplayer and wins those, id be more impressed. Still lot more luck factors in those games in my view. But I still think fundamentally its different skill sets as previously described. But ill admit there is within the sphere of 8 player risk, a skill set to that way of playing risk. I just think like I already wrote before its techniques and gimmicks. I mean in rl saying how you stack your pieces to make it look haphazard and non threatening. Its ... not really skill. Its a technique...

But even in us a 2.1 I think y ou give head to head player a disservice. You say you can't feign weakness. Im not so sure. But I feign strength a whole heck of a lot. I mean, it could coneeivably be done on many big maps. But especially use 2.1. Sure its also math. So you try to figure out where you are going to fight, and you say ok he ll probably go for what? maybe Alabama on this drop? Well... if he does Im basically unable to do anything about it. And it will hurt.. I could be really behind. But I have first turn. Do I stack in AL to make him grind it out, and spend 3 turns trying to take it, or do I pretend like as strong as he is In Alabama, Im even stronger in Oregon. Ill deploy in Oregon on my first turn, and pretend that my strength in Oregon communicates to him that if he fights for AL, ... I've already committed to Oregon thinking it will counterbalance. And its complete bs. AL is by far the better move for them on their turn. But if even a handful of games I can get my opponent to see that I chose to fight in Oregon and they fight me there, and AL just never gets used... then I guess I bluffed my way out ok. Then again, sometimes it doesn't matter. And all that psychology doesn't get you anywhere, cause they just deploy in AL like they should and they get the bonus, and you have a very rough game. But enough of the time, there is counter play on u s a 2.1 maps. But sometimes, unfortunately the 20% you just get a dead game on the drop and you'd be lucky to beat skilled players. The site has far more than just me playing USa 2.1 nowadays.

I don't want to take away from the fun of risk any one experiences in how they play their preferred way. Some of my response was guided in retort to the way current conquerors are determined and the gameplay of choice being scolded or viewed as second tier. And may seem a bit overstated. Maybe it was. And while I will say to be clear there is skill in a lot of methods to risk, as much as Id like to think this diplomacy risk is the god tier of risk skill... I just don't see it personally. People who like to play multiplayer risk escalating should go for it. And there will be a group who do and within the group their will be a skill ladder with some at the top. Just like with those who really excel not at wide range of maps played all foggy escalating 8 player, but a singular map, with a singular setting, where they just excel a bit more than most and score rises. Both have merit. And yes, I have my bias... ugh it just feels wrong sometimes using the word bias. Its like saying they re wrong but think they re right. Sometimes its just a valid point. There is a certain valid point that even though getting to conqeuror by being good at one map is valid... its just as valid to say lets figure out a new way to do it. As I've tried to show... sometimes risk games are made so you have to win playing the game. Straight out.

And you might just say all that I wrote is irrelevant. CC doesn't use event cards. ... well you'd be right. Think Ive still illustrated my point though. And gameplay in CC is also unique.. and its own thing which generates a winnable skilled method of play that has traction without the bickering and diplomacy. I tend to like just having a game where the chat is gl hf and some chat occasional which is tactical commentary or strategic planning. Instead of. YOU BROKE YOUR WORD YOU RUINED THE GAME YOU GAVE AWAY MY POSITION YOU ATTACKED YOU TOOK MY CARD SPOT backstabber, liar, sore cheat etc etc. I mean, you probably have good conversations in the multiplayer too... But in any case. Ive talked myself out for the night. Don't see either side changing opinion, and its fine.

[iAmCaffeine]

have u been playing team games with cheffed?

[Nut Shot Scott]

Wtf was that...

[general cod]

That was the small print 95% of people don't read simply because they have better stuff to do with their time, or Artificial Intelligence, or a response of an encyclopaedic compendium quantity or all 3.
Original point ... The conqueror could/should be the best all round player with various criteria to determine a true King on an annual basis.
Not to take away the point leaders brand of skill, worthy of being point leaders by playing the kind of games fore-mentioned which to most are long winded and very, very boring, but to get to the top of the points that is what it takes.
Final point: After playing this for a while most realise the road to the top of the rankings is long, laborious and only for the few desperate to be the best... but your not the best just the most diligent in your quest and very intellectual and narrow minded of course.

[random21]

have u been playing team games with cheffed?

I have not played with cheffed yet.

[Extreme Ways]

I like the Malta map for the same reasons. There's almost always counterplay and while the map is small, so many people make obvious mistakes that a bad drop can be overturned,

[Craig25]

Hear, Hear.

Surely the 'conqueror' is the current best player yeh, well no the 'conqueror' plays a few games on tried and trusted settings. This is boring and although proven strategy amongst the highest ranked players, these are not the best but one trek ponies.
Have a tourney year long if u like, involving most maps and settings - this would earn respect and the winner ofc would have to of been lucky but a fitting 'conqueror' of conquer club.
The current conqueror is an egotistical charlatan, will be there for years and is about as interesting as a dogs turd.

[Craig25]

Putting it politely, BOLLOX!

I think the ideal of conqueror being a skillful player who can general win at styles that require skill is a fair one. But the point is that this could differ widely based on who you ask and what seems to demonstrate true skill.

It is not about opinions. I very well and strictly defined it. A game demonstrate true skill if when played multiple times the skillful player is dominating it. The highest the win rate the highest the true skill required.

For each style the skillful player can (and should) pick the games that maximises the skill required in order to maximise the win rate.

For example multiplayer escalating requirs skill. Jalijoo has proven that. If you chose 4 players at doodle earth you will fail to prove it. The skillful player can and should pick the game of each style that will allow him to prove his skill.
1v1 in simple small maps does not require skill because there is no player who can play these games and has a high rate of wins. So this is not a style the conqueror should play.

Same with rest styles.

So, in the ideal world the conqueror would play all styles chosing the exact set up for each style to maximise the dependency of skill and win rate.

As we are not at ideal world and there is no system to achieve the above, what we have is fine

[Extreme Ways]

Putting it politely, BOLLOX!

show

Very informative post this. Why do you disagree?

[rockfist]

I think it takes tremendous skill to read a USA2.1 or a w2.1 board well, both in teams/poly or in individual games. I too don’t deny there is skill to escalating but I find that enough games are won because someone immediately preceding the winner goes for it - and fails, which increases the luck factor.

[BabySasuke]

leave baltics outta this duk!

[Zemljanin]

Your enormous post provokes a certain number of small whys, but I'll neglect them all in the favor of one biggest WHY:

Why should conqueror be chosen the way you suggest, instead of current, natural way?

That seems to be what the thread is about? Something unfair about current method of conqueror selection. Or that some players jus tabuse it a certain way.

So your suggestion was just a speculation? OK then.

However, it seems you're confusing notions conqueror and champion. That still isn't a reason to bother you, but there are many others who have the same issue.
So I am formally answering to you, but I am actually talking to all posters I disagree with.

I am back after ten years of absence and don't know (nor do I care) who precisely is the champion. I do know that we have a championship in progress. So we will get a new champion. Until then, the champion is whoever won the previous championship. Very simple.

The conqueror issue is even simpler - the conqueror is whoever (legally) has the highest rating*. Period.
(* What we locally call score, globally is called rating.)
There is nothing unfair in current "method of conqueror selection". On the contrary - any other method would be unnatural and meaningless.

The game we're playing here isn't really a game; it's more a family of games, like poker. A player A can excel in certain maps/settings; a player B can excel in completely different maps/settings. They can play for years without ever meet each other in the same competition, not to mention the same game. Can we still compare their skill? Yes! Each of them is rated, so we can compare the numbers (who's is bigger )
Is such a comparison perfect? Of course not. But it's the only one aplicable...

You told what you think about the standard multiplayer games. I think the opposite (and incidentally, could force you to rethink; but not now...)
So even if we were the only two members of this community, it would be still impossible to choose a conqueror who would "satisfy all". Now add many thousands of other people, with their tastes and opinions...
Repertoires can't be universally compared by their value, but rating points can. So it's not what's your repertoire, but how good you are in it.

Le roi est mort, vive le conquérant/la conquérante!

P.S. Planned to say a few words about abusing, but I'm too tired now. And there is no real need, since Naruto looks clean. Annoyingly clean, to many who would like to find him red-handed
Anyway, Dukasaur wrote many beautiful posts about the topic. They can be found 'in this thread, as well as elsewhere on the board...

[Extreme Ways]

You compare points/score/rating to skill. That comparison is flawed, a player of 2500 points may very well be less skilled than a player of 2000 points. In some game types, people in this thread allege that it's easier to gain these rating points. Repertoires can't be universally compared by their value, but rating points can. That doesn't make it a good comparison, because rating points is an indirect reflection of one's repertoire.

[KingOfGods]

Adding in to say that Josko and sjnap were two of the best all-around players as conquerors. But the absolute best all-around player to get to conqueror would have to be poo-maker, who would beat you in anything from team games to private high-rank standard sequential escalating games to speed freestyle escalating games, and was incredible at the Bamboo Jack map.

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

I like the Malta map for the same reasons. There's almost always counterplay and while the map is small, so many people make obvious mistakes that a bad drop can be overturned,

1 vs 1? Best of 100?

[betiko]

way too much to read here.... but just to clarify: my problem with players such as naruto, is that he creates games where you can only join by password. he selects his victims. he won't allow any good player to join his games because he could fae defeat. That is not what you expect from a conqueror..
It's one thing to ONLY create games on specific settings (obviously you can't play settings where you don't have an edge over the average good player); it's another thing to create all the games you play AND not allow any opponent to join them... only opponents with a score high enough and a knowledge low enough.

[Extreme Ways]

way too much to read here.... but just to clarify: my problem with players such as naruto, is that he creates games where you can only join by password. he selects his victims. he won't allow any good player to join his games because he could fae defeat. That is not what you expect from a conqueror..
It's one thing to ONLY create games on specific settings (obviously you can't play settings where you don't have an edge over the average good player); it's another thing to create all the games you play AND not allow any opponent to join them... only opponents with a score high enough and a knowledge low enough.

Read viewtopic.php?f=31&t=235549 - naruto is doing an open-to-all challenge series
Edit: 2250 and up - not open to all. Thanks NSS.

I like the Malta map for the same reasons. There's almost always counterplay and while the map is small, so many people make obvious mistakes that a bad drop can be overturned,

1 vs 1? Best of 100?

I didn't mean 1v1 - very few maps are balanced for 1v1. I meant doubles ns a f (t), but in either case I'm not doing any pickup games at the moment and if I would, I would use them to integrate myself better in REP. Sorry.

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

way too much to read here.... but just to clarify: my problem with players such as naruto, is that he creates games where you can only join by password. he selects his victims. he won't allow any good player to join his games because he could fae defeat. That is not what you expect from a conqueror..
It's one thing to ONLY create games on specific settings (obviously you can't play settings where you don't have an edge over the average good player); it's another thing to create all the games you play AND not allow any opponent to join them... only opponents with a score high enough and a knowledge low enough.

Read viewtopic.php?f=31&t=235549 - naruto is doing an open-to-all challenge series

I like the Malta map for the same reasons. There's almost always counterplay and while the map is small, so many people make obvious mistakes that a bad drop can be overturned,

1 vs 1? Best of 100?

I didn't mean 1v1 - very few maps are balanced for 1v1. I meant doubles ns a f (t), but in either case I'm not doing any pickup games at the moment and if I would, I would use them to integrate myself better in REP. Sorry.

Well when you are ready just send me 100 invites for Malta Doubles. I look forward to it !

[iAmCaffeine]

EW usually prefers decent competition, unlucky jr.

[random21]

way too much to read here.... but just to clarify: my problem with players such as naruto, is that he creates games where you can only join by password. he selects his victims. he won't allow any good player to join his games because he could fae defeat. That is not what you expect from a conqueror..
It's one thing to ONLY create games on specific settings (obviously you can't play settings where you don't have an edge over the average good player); it's another thing to create all the games you play AND not allow any opponent to join them... only opponents with a score high enough and a knowledge low enough.

I would expect a game to be open to anyone. Though I guess I might not make a big deal if you not let anyone below 1000 or below some number join. Certainly 1400+ is legit.

I do write to much. Boring to read. Just giving an overall sense. Not specifically defending that everything going on is legit. But... wanting to move it past the people saying the same old same old stuff. If someone is arguing against something, also helpful to say what you are for to replace it. Then something can be done.

In the end, I don't know what is best.

[Nut Shot Scott]

way too much to read here.... but just to clarify: my problem with players such as naruto, is that he creates games where you can only join by password. he selects his victims. he won't allow any good player to join his games because he could fae defeat. That is not what you expect from a conqueror..
It's one thing to ONLY create games on specific settings (obviously you can't play settings where you don't have an edge over the average good player); it's another thing to create all the games you play AND not allow any opponent to join them... only opponents with a score high enough and a knowledge low enough.

Read viewtopic.php?f=31&t=235549 - naruto is doing an open to-all -series

Well no. He's doing an open to all over 2500 series. There is a difference.

[Extreme Ways]

way too much to read here.... but just to clarify: my problem with players such as naruto, is that he creates games where you can only join by password. he selects his victims. he won't allow any good player to join his games because he could fae defeat. That is not what you expect from a conqueror..
It's one thing to ONLY create games on specific settings (obviously you can't play settings where you don't have an edge over the average good player); it's another thing to create all the games you play AND not allow any opponent to join them... only opponents with a score high enough and a knowledge low enough.

Read viewtopic.php?f=31&t=235549 - naruto is doing an open to-all -series

Well no. He's doing an open to all over 2500 series. There is a difference.

Hmm true, it's 2250+ and not open to all. I dont fault him much for that though, he also could not have done anything at all and only play restricted DS games.

[dysonsphere]

Playing the same game to your own skillset is going to win you more points but in the end you're just beating up on the little kids. I used to tear up one map but realised i was just defeating those weaker than me on that map. Yawnfest. I have now sacrificed points and rank but I just don't care. I'd rather have fun.